Octavia Sorbet

I know this is an old thread, but I just wanted to point out the Weighted contest board by Blaise Timtam available on the marketplace. It solves the contest issues in second life.. Well done to Blaise for building a better contest board.

My account went to honored in 4 postings. I dont know how they work. But pointing fingers and making accusations is not helpful. this is a discussion thread and LL has invited commentary. Please dont act like the forum police and discourage people from posting on this very important issue. Everyone is allowed to have an opinion. In my understanding, This is the proper place to post it.

correct me if I'm wrong, but it does not say when in the application process the fee is taken.

daisybloomer wrote: AnKayla wrote: Not too good with these threads but can someone help with this question? I have to pay tier and am not sure if profit share can still be here? I don't want to lose linden I have games from a profit share avatar on my land. Will this still be legal? I am not responsible for it but can they still do the profit share for me? Will I lose their business now ? Going exactly based on what LL's new Second Life Skill Gaming Policy says you would fall under as an "Operator" since you are collecting money from it and your game would classify as a "Skill Game" since people are having to pay-to-play. That means you will have to apply to be an operator and move to a Skill Gaming Region if you wished to continue what you are doing now. No, its not his game, the split avatar owns it and is the operator, and he would need to be on that avatars list as a person who recieves liden payment for providing services to that avatar (land)

A few procedural questions for Linden Lab If I begin the application process and do phase one, and am unable or decide not to complete phase 2, am I out the application fee? When in the process is the fee deducted, only if your application is approved? Will denied applications be charged the fee? Thank you Octavia

Innula Zenovka wrote: Octavia Sorbet wrote: Well this is not really about shooting galleries or chess games, so I don't know what your on about. As has been pointed out by others, this is more about wether the game play has "a material part" depending on chance. Making apples to oranges comparisons is not helping, If you want to talk about Fire Ball, RWP, No Devil, or any other of the popular skillgames that are present in the gamerooms then I will look forward to your input. On the contrary, I think this really is about shooting galleries and chess games. Do you seriously suggest that No Devil and the rest are games whose outcome is "not contingent, in whole or in material part, upon chance"? Go on -- try to describe how to play one of them without suggesting chance plays a material role in the outcome. Well you just made my point for me, Nobody can tell for sure one way or the other without seeing the code. Linden lab can see the code, all they need to do is look, why make 'operators' jump thru hoops?

Innula Zenovka wrote: Octavia Sorbet wrote: . Innula Zenovka wrote: I don't think the attorney is asked to give an opinion about the code, any more than, in RL, your attorney would need to know anything about the code of your online game (or Android app) to be able to tell you if it's a game of skill or game of chance according to local law and your description of the game. All the attorney needs is an explanation of the game, its rules and how it pays out. If it doesn't do what you say it does in the affidavit you've sworn, then LL can take a look at the code and see what's going on. Hi Innula. This is a virual environment.. The code -is- the game. If that was the case, why involve the attorney at all? Why not just a sworn affidavit from me that to the best of my knowledge, the game works as the creator described? Personal liability. Lindens are trying to make operators personally liable and culpable in San Francisco court. Well I am not willing to take on that personal liability, I did not create the game, I dont know how it works, or if it works as described. As a game owner I rely 100% on the creator to make that affirmation. No credible attorney should base a legal opinion upon the unproven statements of others. Wether its a facebook app, or an android app. Or a SL game. Attorneys have to base thier opinions on law and facts I can affirm by affidavit that I have not altered the game, in any way. Beyond that, its between lindens and the game crator as far as I'm concerned. So I won't be applying, and potentially making myself personally liable for the work and affermations made by others. That would be incredibly stupid. I don't see that an attorney, or anyone else, would find it difficult to say whether, for example, a game in which you paid to shoot at a variety of targets, your score was recorded and, every 24 hours, 90% of the takings were paid to the person with the highest score (or divided equally between the winners if two or more people scored the winning score) was a game of skill or not. The attorney is not being asked to comment how the game is coded. She is being asked to say whether, in her professional opinion, the game, as described in the sworn affidavit, is a game of skill, or at least one in which chance plays a negligable role, or a game of chance. Certainly I would expect my RL solicitor here in the UK to be able to tell me if I needed a licence from our Gambling Commission to run a pay-to-play online chess game, with a cash prize for the winner, without having to look at the code. Well this is not really about shooting galleries or chess games, so I don't know what your on about. As has been pointed out by others, this is more about wether the game play has "a material part" depending on chance. Making apples to oranges comparisons is not helping, If you want to talk about Fire Ball, RWP, No Devil, or any other of the popular skillgames that are present in the gamerooms then I will look forward to your input.

. Innula Zenovka wrote: I don't think the attorney is asked to give an opinion about the code, any more than, in RL, your attorney would need to know anything about the code of your online game (or Android app) to be able to tell you if it's a game of skill or game of chance according to local law and your description of the game. All the attorney needs is an explanation of the game, its rules and how it pays out. If it doesn't do what you say it does in the affidavit you've sworn, then LL can take a look at the code and see what's going on. Hi Innula. This is a virual environment.. The code -is- the game. If that was the case, why involve the attorney at all? Why not just a sworn affidavit from me that to the best of my knowledge, the game works as the creator described? Personal liability. Lindens are trying to make operators personally liable and culpable in San Francisco court. Well I am not willing to take on that personal liability, I did not create the game, I dont know how it works, or if it works as described. As a game owner I rely 100% on the creator to make that affirmation. No credible attorney should base a legal opinion upon the unproven statements of others. Wether its a facebook app, or an android app. Or a SL game. Attorneys have to base thier opinions on law and facts I can affirm by affidavit that I have not altered the game, in any way. Beyond that, its between lindens and the game crator as far as I'm concerned. So I won't be applying, and potentially making myself personally liable for the work and affermations made by others. That would be incredibly stupid.

How can an attorney possibly form an opinion to the legality of any game without: 1. being a scripter who understands lsl and gaming coding and 2. seeing the source code for thelselves It cant be done. Creatoirs may be able to do this as they have the source. Operators cannot. This is the end of it, its a ban.

Kenbro Utu wrote: Octavia Sorbet wrote: The revenues are incredibly huge, and I'm going to venture a guess that it makes up for at least half of the volume of $linden dollar trading inworld. Probably more. This is where I stopped believing you had anything real to say... Okay! Have a great day!

MartinRJ Fayray wrote: Okay I'm sorry to stop you right there, but this is nonsense. Hi Martin You made several good points, I'm not going to argue them. However I'll just say your basis for comparison for what is a lot of money is relative. A full sim of gaming can have hundreds of games. To compete with established gamerooms there is a myriad of costs. Purchasing a variety of licensed games, add ons, having enough money on hand to pay the jackpots, a staff, a builder, any custom artwork, a greeter bot, other attractions, gadgets, etc adds up and for someone to establish a competitive gameroom represents a signifigant investment in linds. It may not be alot for YOU, but it is alot for ME. Plus, all these expendatures motivates the linden economy. The adverse effects of this policy will damage all of that business going on. If someone was going to open a full sim of gaming and install ONE game they had custom scripted for $50000 linds, It would be an epic fail, and frankly, its not how it works. That is nonsense. As a gameroom operator you have to offer the latest and greatest and all the variety there is available. The latest web based add-on system costs $140000 linds which is appropriate for a fullsim gameroom. This is not a custom build, its just the everyday sale price. And it is highly desireable to have, to compete with large gameroom operations that already have it, that is just one example. But im afraid you may have missed my point, which is saddling operators with attorney fees to evaluate each and every game they offer for play in a game room can cost alot. I have heard numbers thrown around between $5000 and $10000 USD. (ignoring the fact that the actual evaluation for an operator is impossible, due to the fact that we don't own the source code) That is a slap in the face. And it shuts alot of us down if it happens, so I suggest creators do not adopt an 'us against them' attitude with operators because we are in this together and depend on each other along with the gaming residents to be successful. Octavia

Hi Everybody! Ok, after reading all that I can find, and discussing with colleagues, here's my 2c as of this time... The following is my opinion as a legacy gameroom owner, and I may be wrong in any statements I make, this situation is still new, and I am in the same place as the rest of the potential 'operators' waiting to see how all of this will come to pass. This new policy effectively bans skillgaming in sl for the vast majority of current gameroom owners. I will elaborate as to why later in this opinion but first lets look at the impact of skillgaming currently has on the SL grid. The revenues are incredibly huge, and I'm going to venture a guess that it makes up for at least half of the volume of $linden dollar trading inworld. Probably more. If this revenue source is lost, I speculate that it will hurt linden labs, and hurt the grid, just like the gambling ban hurt in the past. Just like marketplace hurt inworld product merchants. A large amount of the money earned by gameroom owners goes to rent, or tiers. If gamerooms close, it will mean those rents/tiers will no longer be making its way back to linden labs, and that means lost revenue for linden lab. With the recent announcement of a new sl grid under development, I am not suprised this has happened. LL has had years to do this, why do it now? It seems like an afterthought in the light of the recent 'new grid' announcement. The grid has a bright future of establishments closing thier doors, sims disappearing, and people fleeing to other venues for thier online activities. Looks like the "zyngo parlours" will be the first to go. Now, why do I say this policy effectively bans gameroom operations as they currently exist? Gamerooms are very expensive. For many, they are -currently- a cost prohibitive business model. The new policy raises those startup costs exponentially. Many, many gameroom operations are 'profit share' operations. Purchasing games and add ons from creators is very expensive, plus you have land rent/tiers, and then the basic need to build an inviting, attractive place to put the games. There are many factors in opening a gameroom, many expenses. Some operators offer 'profit split' games, to allow newcomers to enter the gaming business with much less startup cost than would be needed otherwise. The game owner rezzes his games on the land owned or rented by the gameroom owner, and the profits are split between them. The new policy forbids linden dollar payments from the operator account, thus making profit shares a thing of the past. Even if the payment was allowed, the profit share operator is SOLELY responsible for the volume and income tax on the profit as recorded and reported tothe IRS by linden labs. So we have a ban on profit share gaming, and creators who have created and sold profit split devices are out of a business. Next, it is my understanding from talking to a couple of game creators that all current skillgames will need updates to comply with this policy. Not only is the policy vague on just what constitutes a game to have 'a material part' of chance, but special lsl calls need to be present in the game, like llTransfer... and (slgaming) among other things. This represents a great loss to all current skillgame operators who have games that will not be updated by thier creators. The main reason the new policy effectively bans skillgaming in sl for 95+% of gameroom owners is the application process and its requirements. If it were -just- the $100 application fee, that could be absorbed. If it were -just- the raise in tier costs for gaming sims, it could be absorbed.. but what absolutely cannot be absorbed is the attorney fees and retainers assiociated with obtaining written legal opinions on each game a game room has. There is dozens of variety of games in SL, and not only do the creators have to pay an attorney for this service, but the policy states the operator must as well. This is -Impossible- for any operator to provide, unless they are also the game's creator. Attorneys deal in facts, and any legitimate attorney will not give an opinion unless its based in known fact. As a gameroom operator, I rely COMPLETLY on the creator to affirm that the game complies with SL TOS. It is Impossible for me to know FOR A FACT that it does or not, because I do not have access to the source code. This is a common sense problem and its a huge flaw in the gaming policy. Operators SHOULD not have to pay huge attorney fees to get legal letters written thus making startup cost prohibitive. Operators CAN not be expected to supply legal opinions from attorneys about virtual inworld goods that they do not have access to the source code, and thus cannot verify the wether a game has 'a material part' of chance/skill. They simply dont have enough evidence to make that kind of determination. Changes to the skillgaming policy are needed. Elimination of the requirement for operators to provide legal opinion from attorneys is a no brainer. Operators just dont have the information needed to obtain this. Creators can and should prove this with a legal statement, and then the cost of obtaining those legal statements can be passed on to operators and finally to gaming residents, spreading those costs among the many, and requiring each game title to only have this approval process one time. Lastly I want to comment on the fairness of this policy. It stifles the creative process of game creators by adding exponentially to the cost of developing the game. These costs -may- be passed on to operators -if- the game is popular enough to sell enough copies. But there is no guarantee, epecially when there is not going to be -nearly- as many operators int he market for games. This policy destroys the game market. Finally, how is a game creator supposed to beta test a game that is not approved yet? That is an imporrtant part of the creative process that is banned. Another reason this policy is unfair is because it favors very large game operators over the small independent operator. Many gameroom operations are currently in clubs and only consist of a handful of games. This policy shuts down the casual gameroom operator completely. It seems as if the lindens sat in a room with the good ole boys of skillgaming... like maybe the sushants and a few other creator/operators and came up with a way to establish a monopoly in the sl skillgaming business. It is only members of the established, super large scale gaming operations that will be making enough money at this to justify attempting the application process, and they -can- get thier games verified because they developed many of them exclusively, and have access to the source code, and this can provide proof to attorneys the games are in fact games of skill and do not have 'a material part' based in chance, in order to obtain the required legal opinions. I know this is a wall of text and I appreciate the time from those of you who took the time to read it all. I am disappointed and frustrated that in a few weeks time my online virtual businesses that I have been so proud of building up from one game, will be closing. I feel it is unfortunate to have to provide an expensive legal opinion to be able to operate a skillgame machine that is legal under most US and international laws. This goes against the grain of the society we live in, and is a symptom of how givernment regulations and the illegal codes and statutes instituted by the US government adversely affects what goes on in our public, private, and virtual spaces internationally. Octavia

Will adult content be allowed on skill gaming sims?